• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tricia

The Velvet Hammer
Admin
SkiTalk Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
27,297
Location
Reno
The images explain a great deal. You can easily traverse into the avy location from the lower gate and dont really have to go uphill much at all. Its a somewhat gray area hence the case but yea, bottom line, dont poach. I guess in most areas you can get away with this but this particular slope is know to be one of the MOST avalanche prone on the entire mountain.

View attachment 48234

<snip>
]

I forgot, there are pictures from the CAIC showing the area was tracked to smithereens by the time the avalanche happened:

View attachment 48297

<snip>
http://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/acc/acc_report.php?acc_id=432&accfm=inv

And in that context, consider the Vail Daily reporting on the unbelievable (IMO) testimony from Julie Rust, again the head of Vail Ski Patrol that day, and other patrollers:

The Vail Resorts ski patrollers testifying for their company have more than 100 years of combined experience, and all testified that they are unaware of anyone hiking up from Prima Cornice's lower gate to access better snow.

Jim Heckbert, the attorney for Taft Conlin's parents, remained unconvinced.

Heckbert said four people testified under oath that when the upper gate was closed and the lower gate was open, not only did those four sidestep up but did it with a group as large as 10 people at once. And not only do those four do it, they've seen other people do it, Heckbert said.

"If these people saw all this, do you have any explanation why the ski patrol was unaware of this?" Heckbert asked Kevin Latchford, one of those ski patrollers.

"No, I don't have an explanation," Latchford answered.

Julie Rust was head of Vail Ski Patrol on Jan. 22, 2012, when an in-bounds avalanche killed 13-year-old Taft Conlin. Rust said she was surprised to hear about the behavior but testified that people sometimes do some "interesting" things.

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/vail...-cornice-was-good-to-go-for-skiing-they-said/
Aren't the images in Ken_R's post and yours the same, but with the added image of Taft in Ken's?

I get what you're saying, that Vail Patrol *perhaps* should have been more clear that uphill access is unavailable when the upper gate was closed, no matter the reason of the closure.

Where I disagree with you is that, you and others have been clear that it was common practice. The question I have for you (and others who've done that uphill hike) is, did you realize that it was at your own risk?

In my mind, I would realize it was at my own risk, but I don't know the terrain in that area well enough to make that judgement call.
 
Last edited:

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Aren't the images in Ken_R's post and yours the same, but with the added image of Taft in Ken's?
Yes, that's the same image. The one I posted is quite a bit higher resolution, which allows you to better see the tracks in the snow.

Those tracks are particularly important looking at the traverse. You can get to that traverse with little or no hiking. I can't recall which, someone please chime in that has skied there more recently. It's been a long time for me.

The traverse is key in that it gives you an idea of the number of lucky souls who skied under the avalanche path before it slid that day.

I'll answer your question about risk in a bit (spoiler/teaser: yes, all skiing is at your own risk, but there is more to this case). Gotta get outside before it rains!

In the meantime, here's a nice video that the Vail Daily put together with the images from the CAIC the day following the avalanche and some Google Earth images, along with an overview of the main issues in the case:

 
Last edited:

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,288
But the question of whether the traverse was safe such that anyone on it was at risk of spontaneously triggered avalanche due to Vail's negligence wasn't the question being asked. If Conlin had been killed in such circumstances the case might have played out differently although I admit I don't quite understand how if avys are an inherent risk.

1 It was very sad
2 Vail probably did at least the standard amount of ass covering in such circumstances
3 Vail or Vail ski patrol didn't kill the kid
4 IMO the whole 6 years of litigation has been an exercise in grief processing
5 Hopefully some other skiers will wake up to the concept of personal responsibility
6 I'm sure there are already many parents who as a result pay closer attention to where their kids are skiing
 
Thread Starter
TS
S

SBrown

So much better than a pro
Skier
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
7,847
Location
Colorado
If you ski past a closure, and then enter elsewhere and return to the spot where it's closed ... I mean, that's not really that gray.

Vail did a bunch of dumb stuff here, and I think the CYA involved lies; they aren't completely blameless. But it doesn't really matter why the gate was closed, or if mitigation had happened or not ...
 

Mike King

AKA Habacomike
Instructor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,383
Location
Louisville CO/Aspen Snowmass
But the question of whether the traverse was safe such that anyone on it was at risk of spontaneously triggered avalanche due to Vail's negligence wasn't the question being asked. If Conlin had been killed in such circumstances the case might have played out differently although I admit I don't quite understand how if avys are an inherent risk.

1 It was very sad
2 Vail probably did at least the standard amount of ass covering in such circumstances
3 Vail or Vail ski patrol didn't kill the kid
4 IMO the whole 6 years of litigation has been an exercise in grief processing
5 Hopefully some other skiers will wake up to the concept of personal responsibility
6 I'm sure there are already many parents who as a result pay closer attention to where their kids are skiing
@fatbob, it is one thing to talk about personal responsibility for an adult. It is another to talk about personal responsibility for a minor. There is no doubt that skiing involves risk and the Colorado Skier Safety Act absolves ski areas for almost all liability. It does, however, place some obligations on the operator, including:

33-44-107. Duties of ski area operators - signs and notices required for skiers' information.

(2) A sign shall be placed in such a position as to be recognizable as a sign to skiers proceeding to the uphill loading point of each base area lift depicting and explaining signs and symbols which the skier may encounter at the ski area as follows:

(e) Closed trails or slopes, designated by an octagonal-shaped sign with a red border around a white interior containing a black figure in the shape of a skier with a black band running diagonally across the sign from the upper right-hand side to the lower left-hand side and with the word "Closed" printed beneath the emblem.

(4) If a particular trail or slope or portion of a trail or slope is closed to the public by a ski area operator, such operator shall place a sign notifying the public of that fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved. Alternatively, such a trail or slope or portion thereof may be closed with ropes or fences.
So, the issue in the litigation ultimately came down did Vail do what they were supposed to do? And do they bear any responsibility for negligence in Taft's death if they did not?

As noted in the photos of the area, it is quite easy to ski into the path of the upper gate. Vail convinced the jury that it was reasonable to presume that Taft crossed into a closed area even though the lower gate was not closed. Read the verbiage in 33-44-107(4) above: "...shall place a sign notifying the public of the fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved." (emphasis added). Vail didn't do that. Nor did they "(a)alternatively, such a trail or slope or portion thereof may be closed with ropes or fences." In fact, Vail convinced the jury that skiing is a downhill sport, so they bore no responsibility for signing or closing the portion of the slope or trail that could be reached with a simple couple of sidesteps. Even though it was common practice to do so, and even though there are tons of locations in Colorado, even at Vail, where uphill travel is necessary to reach open terrain.

Would a sign have made a difference? Did Vail actually intend to have the whole slope closed, but failed to close the lower gate? Would having the lower gate closed have made a difference? Would a rope have made a difference?

The kid was 13. I remember some of the dumb stuff I did at that age. I'm all for personal responsibility, but I do think that ski areas have responsibilities under the Colorado Skier Safety Act and some of those responsibilities have to do with informing the public who may not be aware or may not be mature enough to keep safe. In this instance, Vail, IMHO, did not meet its obligations. Perhaps they shouldn't be liable, but the are not innocent in this matter either.

Mike
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,288
I'm not suggesting Vail are totally innocent. I don't think anyone has disputed that "the run" from the lower gate was intended to be open
But that's where your quoted bit of the law fails all circumstances - if they intend for ALL of a run to be closed then they have to sign it at all entries but the code is silent on whether a run can be part open from a point. Common sense would suggest they can but litigation isn't always about common sense
Common sense would also suggest that putting up a "No hiking up" sign at the entrance would avoid ambiguity but wiseasses would still claim sidestepping or skinnning wasn't hiking.

& yeah 13 year olds and older do some dumb stuff. Im not sure means that puts the responsibility on ski resorts to act in loco parentis for them. To be honest it's not even an age thing people do dumb stuff whatever their age, we don't demand that everything is wrspped in cotton wool because adult Darwin Award contenders find ways to seriously damage themselves
 

Mike King

AKA Habacomike
Instructor
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
3,383
Location
Louisville CO/Aspen Snowmass
But that's where your quoted bit of the law fails all circumstances - if they intend for ALL of a run to be closed then they have to sign it at all entries but the code is silent on whether a run can be part open from a point.
Read it again. It says: "...shall place a sign notifying the public of the fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved." (emphasis added).

They didn't do that but evidently wove a story that resort skiing is a downhill sport so if a portion of a run requires going uphill, it didn't need to be signed or roped off. Despite the fact that it was not only common to ski uphill to the portion of the run that Vail intended to close, but it common to ski/hike uphill at most resorts in Colorado and at Vail specifically.

And as far as Vail having no responsibility to act in loco parentis, realize that there is some reason that the Skier Safety Act requires actions on the part of a resort operator. It's not (just) about acting in loco parentis, but about informing the public of hazards so that they can make informed decisions. Who knows what, exactly, the jury found to absolve Vail of their responsibility -- was it risky behavior on the part of the kids or some other scheme?

None the less, and as I've repeatedly said, this case is not as open and shut as many initially asserted. It falls in the gray area. Unfortunately, a kid is dead. And it isn't clear that Vail will act more responsibly, let alone more truthfully.

Mike
 

David Chaus

Beyond Help
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
5,529
Location
Stanwood, WA
I’m wondering if posting a sign at the lower gate indicating “No Hiking Uphill”, or even “No Traversing to Approximate Hiking Uphill” would prevent a 13 year old, or an adult, from going ahead and doing what they wanted to do. This is especially the case if people “have done this before.”

A lot of the discussion of this thread has been about whether Vail should have been legally liable, what they could have done or should have to done to properly indicate the run was closed (which would serve to mitigate or minimize or even eliminate their liability). Even if they had done everything that has been suggested, people will still duck ropes and ignore signs. I’m not sure the outcome would have been any different had they done everything perfectly that day. It totally sucks, yes, but we have had tragic deaths like this before and I’m sure we’ll have more.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Where I disagree with you is that, you and others have been clear that it was common practice. The question I have for you (and others who've done that uphill hike) is, did you realize that it was at your own risk?

In my mind, I would realize it was at my own risk, but I don't know the terrain in that area well enough to make that judgement call.

Yes, I knew that hike was at my own risk. All skiing in Colorado is at your own risk.

I was never worried about avalanches on that terrain, as it got a lot of control work and was skied a ton. It's in the middle of the front side of Vail.

Also, it would be crazy not to do control work up there because it funnels down to areas you can ski without hiking from the upper gate. I remember seeing control work all along that ridge including the closed areas above with trees too tight to ski.

When the upper gate was closed, we thought it was to keep the tourists out of the sketchy conditions. A little hike eliminates 99% of skiers. We could, of course, handle the conditions (lucky I got out one time).

We were very much prepared to take the risk of life and limb from the terrain and snow conditions. Avi hazard didn't seem like a huge risk if they had it open. When closed, absolutely, and we'd never duck a rope, anywhere.
 
Last edited:

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
I’m not sure the outcome would have been any different had they done everything perfectly that day
I think the outcome would likely be different if Vail had exercised reasonable care in avalanche mitigation. All indications I've seen are they didn't do any.
 
Last edited:

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,288
"would likely" seems stronger than "might". Seems like a bold statement. Avy is an intrinsic risk. It seems that if Vail didn't do specific Avy work on the "upper" area it's because they didn't consider it open. In addition lots of people had skied it anyway apparently so it is possible that Conlin just got really unlucky.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Vail apparently exercised reasonable care on the elements of Prima Cornice they had designated open.

Often times, especially early season, resorts keep terrain closed when skiable and strategically don't mitigate avalanches. On terrain like Prima Cornice, early in the season, avy work that causes a slide is liable to release all the way to the ground -- erasing all the snowpack. If you let the snow naturally settle for a few days you may get some bridging in the pack that allows it to be skied or controlled without a to the ground release.

My memory is that the day in question was right after a significant snowfall event the night before. Vail may have intentionally not mitigated that day (or had no plans to in general) because they wanted to preserve snowpack rather than wiping it clean.
 

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
While I feel horrible for the familly and of course the deceased kid, what could or should managment do to prevent people from hiking up every closed trail?

Also unclear to me is if resort managements would allow hiking of closed trails with seriouse avalanche risk. If they believed there was considerable avalanch risk would they have posted more signs or commenced avalanch control?
 

fatbob

Not responding
Skier
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
6,288
While I feel horrible for the familly and of course the deceased kid, what could or should managment do to prevent people from hiking up every closed trail?

Also unclear to me is if resort managements would allow hiking of closed trails with seriouse avalanche risk. If they believed there was considerable avalanch risk would they have posted more signs or commenced avalanch control?

AIUI Vail's defence is that Avy control was irrelevant as they considered the part of the area that slid as closed. For the reasons jmeb outlines it is not necessary good patrol practice to bomb the crap out of all potential avalanches if the resort ultimately wants to open that terrain.

What the Conlin side contended was that it wasn't clear the area was closed because it could be accessed from the lower gate and a) people did do this reasonably frequently b) Vail knew about this and did not explicitly clamp down on this thus c) it was reasonable to assume that Vail intended for the terrain to be open if it was accessed in this way or d) Vail should have posted additional signs or ropes if they did not intend people to hike up.

There's also a bit of noise around the fact that the actual slide seemed to have carried into the traverse zone. To my mind this is a bit irrelevant as we aren't talking about a spontaneous release or remote trigger from the traverse but adds to the "Vail bad" emotion if you are so minded.

So where I'm at, Vail could have posted no uphill travel signs at the lower gate fairly easily. IF they knew that hiking up was common and simply turned a blind eye this ommission seems more serious. I supect that this is where most of the "lying" vibe comes from, coloured by individuals' experience of hiking up the same or similar terrain and the fact that sometimes "locals" get away with more stuff than Gary Gaper might. The fact that uphill hiking is explicitly or defacto allowed at other resorts is pretty irrelevant IMV. I believe the primary indication of intended closure was the upper gate.

Clearly the jury found the defence more powerful than the additional things Vail could or should have done. To me logically that stacks up. As for whether they should have been more careful because they knew there would be unaccompanied minors on the hill that doesn't really stack up for me as an additional reason not least because it might implay that they needed to station a sentry to ID and police anyone going out to East Vail in case they were minors.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
There's also a bit of noise around the fact that the actual slide seemed to have carried into the traverse zone. To my mind this is a bit irrelevant as we aren't talking about a spontaneous release or remote trigger from the traverse but adds to the "Vail bad" emotion if you are so minded.

Agree that this is a stretch. There are spots all over resorts that are in run-out zones of closed areas. Places where remote triggers are highly unlikely. Fragmented, semi-treed terrain like Prima Cornice is less susceptible to remote triggers than say, a wide open bowl with a more connected snowpack.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
"would likely" seems stronger than "might". Seems like a bold statement. Avy is an intrinsic risk. It seems that if Vail didn't do specific Avy work on the "upper" area it's because they didn't consider it open. In addition lots of people had skied it anyway apparently so it is possible that Conlin just got really unlucky.
Fair enough. I'll rescind that statement and revise to say that I think the outcome might be different if Vail had exercised reasonable care in avalanche mitigation.

I think it's very much worth discussing how likely it is the outcome would be different if Vail had performed additional avalanche mitigation, and if the avalanche mitigation they did met the standard of reasonable care.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that this doesn't matter legally, as ski areas have no duty to do any avalanche mitigation. I think it still matters to us skiers, as our lives depend on proper avalanche mitigation being performed.

The majority of the reporting says Vail did NO avalanche mitigation on Prima Cornice that season, per Vail's own daily avalanche mitigation reports produced for discovery. There is at least one article that says Vail claims they did avalanche mitigation the morning of the incident by having two ski patrollers ski down Prima Cornice.

What we know for certain is the head of Vail Ski Patrol, again Julie Rust, mislead the CAIC, a Colorado State Agency responsible for investigating avalanche, into believing that Vail had performed avalanche mitigation work on Prima Cornice. I've posted that deposition above.

What Vail initially claimed is ski patrol had “begun mitigating the avalanche hazard in the Prima Cornice area with several explosive and ski cutting missions in December and early January.” That would be consistant with what I've seen Vail do in the past on that terrain and similar. Why it wasn't done in the 2011-2012 season is something we may never know, it seems.

Edit: Here's an excerpt from her deposition:

julierust_pdf__page_2_of_2_.jpg
 
Last edited:

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
You are making avalanche mitigation seem much clearer than it is. Why mitigation is done one way one year and a different way another year has everything to do with the season, how the snow fell, temperatures, etc etc etc.

I agree that the Vail Ski Patrol stories crossed is not confidence inducing. But attributing intentional misdirection what can be more easily explained by many other less evil factors seems a bit unnecessary to me. And I am not a Vail fanboi in the slightest.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
@jmeb I think it's really hard to make a case that doing no avalanche mitigation on Prima Cornice met any reasonable standard of care. I'm not a snow professional, but I've never seen any run like that open without mitigation. Especially given the extremely dangerous snowpack and forecast for high avalanche danger that day it just makes no sense. I'd love to hear how it makes sense if you or anyone have any thoughts.

For context, here's an excerpt from a Denver Post article about how Vail misled investigators about the mitigation work

The snow conditions leading up to Jan. 22 were “horrendous” due to a lack of snow and rotted snow layers that left the snow base weak, ski patrol supervisor William Mattison said in his deposition.

“We were waiting for avalanches to occur,” he said. “We knew that … once it did snow, it was going to be bad.”

Yet, Vail’s daily avalanche-mitigation reports do not show that any control measures were done on Prima Cornice prior to Jan. 22.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sponsor

Staff online

  • Dwight
    Practitioner of skiing, solid and liquid
Top